HELP! Popla email with loads of attachments

Redx

they wont reveal their contracts etc apart from to a judge (or to popla but the popla contracts are usually redacted)

they certainly wont prove their case to YOU so its not you who is asking , you are asking for them to be seen by POPLA , not you

they are issuing an invoice for an alleged debt , your requests will be ignored and the demands will continue

only if it went to court can you actually try to get a judge to be made aware of your demands as listed in your last post

but its those sort of demands that you need to make in reply to their evidence pack as if they dont submit them then popla may rule against them, stop writing this from the first party (you)

so something like this

1. I insist that they provide clear authorisation from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices on their land, and insist that the contract is provided as evidence and not any witness statements.

2.The claimant must demonstrate the charge £100 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I challenge their figures and that only the evidence arising as a genuine pre estimate of loss is assessed and not any other subsequent charges like running costs. There was no damage or obstruction caused, and no loss arising from the incident. I feel that any amount lawfully claimed is the amount the driver should have paid into the machine only plus any recovery charges.

3. I am appealing on the basis I believe £100 charge is punitive and constitutes a penalty and bears no relation to any losses suffered by the claimant.

jeanie49

Oh. So not worth replying then? Am I better waiting for the POPLA decision?

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

NO you must rebut them

jeanie49

Thanks. Is the reply ok to send or do I need to add more?

Redx

you need to use what I have written and altered but look at their evidence pack , copy and paste the sections you are challenging and then write as a third party rebutting them , as if a solicitor were taking apart their evidence piece by piece , in court , quoting the sections you object to and issuing guidance on the legal terms or cases rebutting their arguments or evidence

jeanie49

I have written my reply now. I would be grateful of someone could just give it a quick check its ok to send. Many many thanks for all help.


I wish to refute the submissions on the above appeal for the following reasons:

1. I insist the claimant must provide clear authorisation and legal contract from the landowner to allow policing of roads at John Lennon airport and to issue Parking Charge Notices on their land, and I insist the contract is provided as evidence and not any witness statements.

2. The claimant must demonstrate that the charge £100 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I challenge their figure and that only the evidence arising as a genuine pre-estimate of loss is assessed and not any other subsequent charges, like running costs. There was no damage or obstruction caused, and no loss arising from the incident. I feel that any amount lawfully claimed is the amount the driver should have paid into the machine only plus and recovery charges.

3. I am appealing on the basis I believe £100 charge is punitive and constitutes a penalty and bears no relation to any losses suffered by the claimant.

4. I insist the claimant proves ANPR is compliant and not defective.

5. Where the claimant states: "Airport byelaws are not currently in use. The last set of byelaws relates to the old airport site and is consequently regarded as obsolete by the airport company. The access roads are therefore private."

I refute the above claim as this is irrelevant. The claimant cannot choose to ignore a piece of legislation because it is outdated or inconvenient. These laws do exist, and VCS cannot make use of keeper liability facility provided by Prosecutors of Freedoms Act.

6. "Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) vs. HMRC, we refer to paragraph 46 of the decision where it stated, “VCS is permitted under contract [with the landowner] to collect and retain all fees and charges from parking enforcement action”. The VCS vs. HMRC case was won by VCS on appeal and we do have the relevant authority."
The above quote is taken entirely out of context. The case did involve VCS but the case related solely to enforcement in permit-only car parks and not to their whole operation. Also the case revolved around issues that arose in 2009 and well before the Institution of POFA. The quote is from the judgment of 2012 appeal to the Upper Tax Tribunal (VCS v HMRC (2012) UKUT 130 (TCC) para 46), which they lost.

Umkomaas

I feel that any amount lawfully claimed is the amount the driver should have paid into the machine only plus and recovery charges.

This doesn't make any literal sense, nor does it apply here if this was stopping on a airport road?

These laws do exist, and VCS cannot make use of keeper liability facility provided by Prosecutors of Freedoms Act.

:rotfl::rotfl:

Try 'Protection'

jeanie49

Oh thanks so much. Is it ok apart from the changes you suggested?
many thanks.

Umkomaas

Seems ok to me, you've already submitted your main appeal, this just adds to it by picking apart some of the stuff sent to POPLA by VCS.

Make sure you cross reference this with your POPLA verification code. If you're sending it snail mail make sure you get a free certificate of posting from the post office.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

you can simply upload it as additional evidence